Mostrar código-fonte de Pergunta: Como é que a "maldição de Cam" ou "maldição de Caim" tornar-se associado com o mormonismo?

{{fonte
|título=Question: How did the "curse of Ham" or "curse of Cain" become associated with Mormonism?
|categoria=
}}
<onlyinclude>
{{translate}}
==Question: How did the "curse of Ham" or "curse of Cain" become associated with Mormonism?==
===Early members of the Church brought this culturally-conditioned belief in the "curse of Ham" with them into Mormonism===
Prior to 1978, the doctrinal folklore that blacks are the descendants of Cain and Ham and that they carry the “mark of Cain” was a belief among some members of the Church, and is occasionally heard even today. The dubious “folk doctrine” in question is no longer even relevant, since it was used to incorrectly explain and justify a Church policy that was reversed over thirty years ago. Prior to the 1978 revelation, however, the Saints used the “mark of Cain” to explain the policy of denying priesthood ordination to those of African descent&mdash;a policy for which no revelation or prophetic explanation was ever actually given.

Early members of the Church were, for the most part, converts from Protestant sects. It is understandable that they naturally brought this culturally-conditioned belief in the "curse of Ham" with them into Mormonism. Many modern members of the Church, for instance, are unaware that Joseph Smith [[Blacks and the priesthood/Origin of the priesthood ban|ordained at least one African-American man to the priesthood]]: Elijah Abel.

At some point during Brigham Young's administration, the priesthood ban was initiated. No revelation, if there ever was one, was published, although many throughout the history of the Church have assumed that the reason for the ban must be that blacks were the cursed seed of Cain, and therefore not allowed the priesthood (usually stemming from a misreading of Abraham 1). The correct answer as to why the ban was put into place is: we don't know. For further information on the priesthood ban, see [[Blacks and the priesthood]].

Bruce R. McConkie in 1978, after the revelation granting blacks the priesthood:
<blockquote>
It is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. <ref>Bruce R. McConkie, [http://www.zionsbest.com/alike.html “All Are Alike unto God,”] address in the Second Annual CES Symposium, Salt Lake City, August 1978.</ref>
</blockquote>

Prior to this statement by Elder Bruce R. McConkie in 1978, the doctrinal folklore that blacks are the descendants of Cain and Ham and that they carry the “mark of Cain” was a belief among some members of the Church, and is occasionally heard even today. The dubious “folk doctrine” in question is no longer even relevant, since it was used to incorrectly explain and justify a Church policy that was reversed over thirty years ago. Prior to the 1978 revelation, however, the Saints used the “mark of Cain” to explain the policy of denying priesthood ordination to those of African descent&mdash;a policy for which no revelation or prophetic explanation was ever actually given.

The speculation was that in the [[Premortal existence|premortal existence]], certain spirits were set aside to come to Earth through a lineage that was cursed and marked, first by Cain’s murder of his brother and covenant with Satan ({{b||Genesis|4|11–15}}; {{s||Moses|5|23–25}}, {{s||Moses|5|36–40}}), and then again later by Ham’s offense against his father Noah. The reasons why this lineage was set apart weren’t clear, but it was speculated they were somehow [[Blacks and the priesthood/Pre-existence|less valiant than their premortal brethren]] during the war in heaven. In this life, then, the holy priesthood [[Blacks and the priesthood|was to be withheld]] from all who had had any trace of that lineage.

As neat and coherent as that scenario might seem, the scriptures typically cited in its support cannot logically be interpreted this way unless one starts with the priesthood ban
itself and then works backward, looking for scriptures to support a predetermined belief.
</onlyinclude>
{{notas}}

<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->

[[en:Question: How did the "curse of Ham" or "curse of Cain" become associated with Mormonism?]]